electrospinning +15kV and -4kV = 19kV

Yikes. That was probably before n/c machining.

OK, I see the DESY description. They mention 'undulator' and '21 keV' which leads me to believe they're starting with an X-ray laser. It wastes most of the power, so beryllium is used (higher melting point than aluminum). One purpose is to use the collimated laser light to make (weakly) a small point source for microscopy. Not really an image-making focus, just a small dot from the low-divergence broader source beam.

For those of us that don't have an X-ray laser, it's unlikely to be useful. It also seems to depend on a negative refractive index (not impossible, but somewhat exotic).

whit3rd wrote in news:fefa26d5-cccc-477c-a3bb- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You got it backwards. The goal is not to use it as we do visible light optics to cast images onto surfaces. The goal is to make a pure, nearly coherent stream of x-rays to cast THROUGH objects onto a subsequent image plane.

The physics are a bit different than those we use to capture visible light imagery.

The manipulation in visible light optics guides reflections and emanations off our 3D world through the optics, onto a flat or curved image 'plane'. So from telescopes to your eyes all work the same.

The manipulation of an x-ray flux is such that when it gets casts onto (and thus through) an object, it will contain the least randomly scattered particles and gain the most collimation through the target and onto the image plane. That collimation is essential to good imagery and dose control. Scattering would raise noise floor, as it were. One would imagine that the 'focus' under discusssion are elements which handles the freshly emitted flux at a point prior to the collimation elements.

You seem to have a mindset like this is some kind of flat screen Wall projector.

Another good explaination scenario.

A visible spectrum regular TV projector casts visible light through a subtractive color mixing image plane and then up onto a screen across the room. The light is 'collimated' from the source, through the image plane, and up onto your wall as a four sided pyramid.

An x-ray machine casts a more linearly collimated beam of xray flux through a target object and onto a subsequent image plane and captures information based on the number of those x-ray particles that make it through the target and onto the image plane allowing one to peer into the internal structure of the target. Any talk of "focus" relates to gaining that 'best case' 'most accurate' collimated beam with which to cast through that target. This is entirely different than 'ordinary' 'optics' imagery storage where reflections are captured from light guided through the optics onto the plane. X-ray is through the target onto the plane.

Not coherent, unless you have an xray laser.

I just wanted to say, Steve, how very helpful your advice and remarks about this topic have been for us. Thank you bigtime!

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Collimated, johnny. Use your brain. You know what I meant.

That's funny. When you misapply common terms like sputtering and coherent, it's my fault if I don't understand your intent.

Correct. He didn't misapply them, but he did use them in a context with which you weren't familiar.

It's tricky to post stuff that is spelled out in enough detail that those unfamiliar with an area can still work out what's meant.

Certain audiences require heroic efforts, which DLUNU failed to exert.

There's not a lot of point in keeping the peanut gallery informed.

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I properly applied the term sputtering.

Coherent was the wrong term.

You are decidedly too stupid to tell the difference and far too f***ed in the head to grasp the contextual application in the first case, which is why you got that one wrong, and far too stupid to get a grip on the second case, because you do not follow or participate in discussions, you perform cursory perusals and take jabs at folks. It is really sad and blatantly obvious how poor you are at playing a know it all.

"In physics, sputtering is a phenomenon in which microscopic particles of a solid material are ejected from its surface, after the material is itself bombarded by energetic particles of a plasma or gas."

The dictionary definition includes this meaning, but there are others.

'make a series of soft explosive or spitting sounds. "the engine sputtered and stopped"

speak in a series of incoherent bursts as a result of strong emotion. "?But ? but ?? she sputtered" emit with a spitting sound. "the goose is in the oven, sputtering fat" proceed in a spasmodic and feeble way. "strikes in the public services sputtered on"

1. Physics deposit (metal) on a surface by using fast ions to eject particles of it fr om a target.

coat (a surface) with a spray of metal particles emitted from a target that is bombarded with fast ions.'

John Larkin's definition of "properly" is a trifle self serving.

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Sorry, oh ye of little education... you chose incorrectly, and lack the brainpower appaerntly to grasp that the term was around long before it was applied in metallic deposition technology.

Nice try though.

Good job of illustrating it by sputtering about in the thread, despite it being explained to you days ago.

You must be a true idiot to have chosen a vapor deposition process term when it is quite obvious that was not the topic of discussion and therefore not the term association you so blatantly incorrectly chose. And no, one should not have to lead you around by the hand.